Lore talk:Reachmen

ESO lore about Reachman culture/religion

Just pointing out that this article could definitely be expanded and revised now that ESO has been released and all of the books and the Emperor's Guide[1] are available. Notably, loading screen lore and the Guide point out Hircine as the principle deity of the Reachmen tribes, and expand on their nature magic quite a bit. — Unsigned comment by Pilaf The Defiler (talk • contribs) at 10:56 on 29 June 2014 (GMT)

Yep. Info about the three clans and the Bloodthorn cult needs to be added. —Legoless (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2014 (GMT)

There's probably a lot of lore from ESO that needs to be added into the lore namespace on the site. Just be patient and it'll be done eventually. You could even help too, that'd be awesome! •WoahBro^►talk 14:28, 29 June 2014 (GMT)

Deadra and Aedra worship.

These was an assertion that Reachmen worshiped Dibella and Kynereth as their shrines are found in Fort Sungard and Broken Tower Redoubt. This seems to be the only source, but its not particular solid. Firstly, there is the issue of Reachmen and Forsworn not necessarily being one and the same. If they do indeed worship them, the info should go on the Forsworn page. Secondly, the shine of Dibella is covered in blood, with the hands cut off, including the flower Dibella holds. Its not really evidence of worship. If can be speculated that the shine has been desecrated too. Or that the Forsworn worship Dibella in a more bloodier fashion. Either way, we can't be sure so I have added a fact tag for now.

For Daedra worship. The Bear of Markarth book makes no mention that Madanach stopped Daedra worship to appease the Empire, the started it again after the Markarth Incident, so I have removed it. To be fair, all sources for them worshipping Daedra are heavily skewed and biased and it needs to be taken into consideration. Things like ""You can fight the Forsworn. If you don't mind going axe-to-axe with a bunch of Daedra-worshipping axe murderers.". Even the Emperor's Guide is bias when the author states: "[That’s more like it -- this contributor writes about the Reachmen with a proper outrage and indignation]" when mentioning the Reachmen. I have added that they purportedly worship Daedra, but I'm not comfortable stating it as a 100% fact unless ESO or other sources sheds more light on this. --Jimeee (talk) 13:15, 19 January 2015 (GMT)

I'm almost sure I remember Madanach (or one of the other prisoners) saying something along the lines of the Markarth Incident being their just reward for "turning [their] back on the Old Gods", which implies that they began worshipping the Divines (at least officially) after Madanach's rebellion. It's not inconceivable that part of the effort to gain recognition from the Empire was to adopt a tolerated religion. And re: the Dibella worship, I'd say that's the best explanation for why these Forsworn just happened to have kidnapped the Sybil (and only the Sybil) from Karthwasten, and kept her, unharmed in a room that is ostensibly a shrine of Dibella. Never noticed the missing hands on the statue, though. I'll have to give this one more thought. 217.33.217.122 13:46, 19 January 2015 (GMT)

Who the "Old Gods" are an enigma - some people speculate they are not actually describing the Daedra, but the Reachman's version of the Divines, but a more primal, nature based pantheon. However, even they ditched the Daedra worship after independence, it doesn't necessarily mean the Imperial pantheon was what replaced it. We just don't know.

Sybill of Dibella connections are speculative. Some believe she was probably sacrifice for some ritual to displease Dibella. Once again, I think there is more to this that we just don't really know yet. --Jimeee (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2015 (GMT)

Descent

Edited the first paragraphs to prevent the common misconception that Reachmen are a group of Bretons. Although they share common descent, they certainly do not identify as such, but instead are two different peoples. The PGE and the "Madmen of the Reach" books which created this idea are heavily imperially biased and try to generalize things greatly. — Unsigned comment by MalaAda (talk • contribs) at 17:05 on 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Unless you have a source to the contrary, it was correct before. The Reachmen are Bretons. —Legoless (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think the point here is that there is a difference here between race and people/national identity. Technically, they are a branch of the same race that encompasses both the Reachmen and the Bretons (as In-game dialogue [8] notes they look very similar). But the fact that their culture and religion and national identity is so different I would not call them Bretons, as those refer to the people who occupy most of High Rock. Calling them bretons is like calling all IRL British people Bretons. The race might be referred to as bretons, but I think this does not justify the fact that they are a different people, just as Imperials and Bretons are different, although they probably share the same Nedic ancestors. So maybe my change is indeed not right, but I think the way it stood here makes people think that they are just a different group within a people, or a subset of a people, which they aren't. --MalaAda (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)— Unsigned comment by MalaAda (talk • contribs) at 20:10 on 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The Reachmen are not the only tribe of Bretons with a distinct culture. Look at the wyrds, or the separate Breton kingdoms. National identity doesn't come into it. I don't think there's any evidence to suggest the Reachmen have more Nede blood than other Bretons either. —Legoless (talk) 01:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I finally found the correct source: [2]. Third question/answer. --MalaAda (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That source doesn't dispute the fact. It's well established that the Reachmen and the settled Bretons consider themselves distinct peoples, much in the same way as Ashlanders are often treated as a separate race from Great House Dunmer. In this regard I wouldn't call the PGE or "Madmen of the Reach" sources of Imperial bias, but rather an accurate outsider's perspective on the natural bias between two estranged tribes of manmer. —Legoless (talk) 13:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but then I think it would be sufficient to say in the article one line such as "though they share ancestry, the Reachmen do not consider themselves Bretons, and vice versa". For me the goal of this discussion to prevent people from choosing anyone's "side", being the Reachmen, Bretons or Imperials/outsiders and to emphasize the fact that there is a dispute and different people have different opinions, no matter which is the "better" opinion. After all the thing about people belonging to a certain group is an opinion rather than a fact. I think it would be better from a role-player's perspective to mention this.

On a side-note, I started thinking about this when some people in the ESO chat were having this discussion, one of which was RPing a reachman and feeling sad that there was no playable reachman race, and another saying "the reachmen are just Bretons, the UESP says so". But of course we do not know if the Reachmen have the same racial traits, even though in Skyrim they did and they might have the same blood. These racial traits might be different due to their culture and the mythopoetic nature of the TES universe. Of course, this is a matter of headcanon and therefore does not have to be mentioned here. Still I think it is better to allow people to believe in both these different versions without being narrowed down by things that might only be game mechanics and such. --MalaAda (talk) 21:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It's a valid point and the suggested line about how they see themselves sounds fine to me. It's also cool to hear how the readers are using UESP as an important lore source :) Tib (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

That looks good to me! —Legoless (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

RE: The Reachmen as "primitive"

I recently made an edit to remove the word primitive from their description, which was undone with the explantation that they are in fact primitive. I do have to disagree with the notion that they are primitive, but even more so I disagree that it is acceptable to call them that. By equating things like animal skins, bones, and feathers with being primitive it implicates real-world indigenous groups that use these materials as primitive as well. Painting us as primitive has been one of the cornerstones in our current and past oppression. Leaving language like that in the page adds nothing of factual value and removing it avoids that connotation without affecting the integrity of the information presented.--Heros-Shade (talk) 21:01, 23 April 2020 (GMT)

Personally I agree with your reasoning, in universe characters may feel that way about the reachmen but that doesn't have a place on a Lore page. I do hope other people participate in this.--Talyyn (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2020 (GMT)

I'm not against calling a tribal society in TES primitive, e.g. ogres or goblins would fit that description quite objectively. This is a fantasy setting; applying modern anthropological theory to it is doing the writing a disservice. In this case though it seems like a massive stretch to label the Reachmen as primitive, they are fully intelligent humans and have a complex society. —Legoless (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2020 (GMT)

I'd also like to point out that the lore section is written from in-universe perspective... if the people of Tamriel feel that way about Reachman then technically it SHOULD be written like that... Jeancey (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2020 (GMT)

Sure, but the Reachmen are also a people of Tamriel, and they hardly consider themselves to be primitive. As articles should be written as objectively as possible, I don't think that the word "primitive" should be used. —Aran Anumarile Autaracu Alatasel (talk) 19:13, 24 April 2020 (GMT)

Reachmen are "tribal" in a sense that they don't often have cities and "barbaric" in the way that they often attack Nords, Bretons, and Orcs but to say they're primitive is an uninformed perspective, their ways of magic (Briarhearts, Hagravens, etc.) are more advanced than most other modern human societies and quite possibly the Bretons too. Most societies might view Reachmen as primitive but they're biased, and many sympathetic Reachmen characters have been written in both skyrim and eso.

We should prioritize a neutral view and avoid describing them from any other culture's one perspective, if we wrote everything from the Imperial view in the Pocket Guides for examples our articles would sound way more biased and different. The Rim of the Sky (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2020 (GMT)

I'd be happy enough if the language is changed because it's biased, but I'd like to stress my original point of the real world harm this can do. I know some people might think I go too far in applying real world concepts and issues in fantasy, but the developers laid the groundwork for it. It's hard to separate most fantasy from the real world because the writers create it from the perspective of someone in the real world. Because of this a lot of fiction ends up making fantasy versions of real things. A common example of this would be the large number of fantasy worlds that are essentially set in medieval Europe with magic. Examples of this in TES could be nords which by names, location, appearance, etc. are meant to conjure vikings to mind. Or the imperials whose armor, actions, etc are often reminiscent of the Roman Empire. The Reachmen are a representation of indigenous groups, albeit a very poor one. By invoking imagery (as in the "tribal" look), stereotypes ("primitive savages with dark magic"), and history (an indigenous group wishing to take back their land) the writers have made a very clear tie to real world groups. Because of this connection many people will associate the two, consciously or not. There's no changing the games' narrative, but the language we use outside of them is still important because of this connection.--Heros-Shade (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2020 (GMT)

I wouldn't be opposed to this change. The Argonians and some Orc clans live off of the wilderness in civilizations that aren't "developed" in the way that most other Tamrielic societies are. But they are no less intelligent or "civilized" than any of the other races are just because they build simple houses, sometimes move around and don't really care for keeping written records. One definition for the word "primitive" is "having a quality or style that offers an extremely basic level of comfort, convenience, or efficiency." Just because some Argonian tribes and many Reachman clans build amenities that are basic, crude or considered primitive by design standards doesn't make the people themselves primitive. Perhaps we can say that the people of Tamriel consider the Reachmen crude and primitive, but we shouldn't state it as if it's an objective descriptor. --MolagBallet (talk) 00:45, 26 April 2020 (GMT)

Should be renamed to Reachfolk

ESO: Markarth (and ESO: Greymoor in some few instances) established Reachfolk as a self descriptor for the Reachfolk. The page should be renamed accordingly. --TheynT (talk) 16:45, 23 November 2020 (GMT)

I'm fine with that. -MolagBallet (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

They have been known as Reachman since pge1, and have subsequently been referred to as such in every title thereafter including Eso. Just because markarth introduced an alternative title does not mean it comes even close to replacing the legitimacy of the name reachman. Keep the information intact as it stands. Dcking20 (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, wiki guidelines for lorespace state that pages should be written following the latest chronological events in-universe. Just because ESO decided to rename Reachmen to Reachfolk only just recently, does not mean we should rename the page, as they're still called Reachmen (by themselves even) as of the most chronological game, Skyrim. In addition to that, most people searching for Reachmen will be searching for "Reachmen", not Reachfolk, because ESO's Greymoor and Markarth DLCs are the only two pieces of content across the whole franchise that calls them that. The vast majority of lore sources across all of the games call them Reachmen, including the most chronological ones. Thal-J (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Searching for the term should be no problem, as a redirect would still link to this page. I guess the wiki guidelines are a bit outdated, as they were written before ESO was a thing (and no one bothered to fix them). Discussions like this are necessary to challenge (or even overrule) our guidelines, otherwise we can never change them.

I'd say to change it, but not gamespace related pages/links. --Ilaro (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I also oppose. Referencing both is no issue, and as stated, people even refer to themselves as Reachmen. In terms of lore there is also no discernibly valuable difference etymologically speaking between Reachmen and Reachfolk. Both "men" and "folk" in this instance refer to an idea or concept of people. If another source comes out tomorrow that they should be called Reachpeople, should the main name of the article be changed, or should we stick with the most consistent usage in the entirety of the Elder Scrolls. There is no problem with just adding a bit in the article that reads (also known as Reachfolk). I would raise a question to our good editors here, do we make the exception the rule, or do we make the common parlance the rule? --Syfri (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I would prefer for Reachmen to be renamed to Reachfolk as a more accurate self descriptor. I however fear that this could potentially mess with Search Engine Optimization, and we need the clicks from those who are less familiar with the series and terms such as "Reachfolk" to help us compete against that other wiki. It can be a huge mistake, for example, look at the lore page Nightingale Trinity, honestly who the heck calls it that? I can't even find the UESP nightingale page unless I specifically state "UESP Nightingale". Either decision made I am fine, but a good solution is to put "Reachmen, (commonly self refered to as Reachfolk).Zebendal (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose, one variation on a name doesn't warrant the change, especially when that exact same game has 100s of references to "Reachmen". Also agree with Zeb in regards to SEO, only people who have played Markarth will be aware of "Reachfolk" compared to the history of TES:Redguard to TES5 having the term "Reachmen". I can agree on making it a prominent part of the main body of text. There are also Reachmen in the Markarth DLC who refer to themselves as Reachmen such as Arloakh, and other NPCs from the DLC referring to them as Reachmen: Mulzurbesh, Tirudilmo, Jotep-Mota and books: Drinks of the Reach. If this was a full retcon, why would the term "Reachmen" still be so prominent in the DLC? Imperialbattlespire (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

(←) To me, this seems like an intentional retcon by ZOS to introduce a more inclusive term. ESO Markarth has introduced the most up-to-date Reach lore in the series; TJ's argument that we should follow chronological order isn't correct, as we actually give precedence to more recent sources regardless of the in-universe time period. It seems to me that Reachfolk is a homonym and the most neutral and current term for this race; seems like good grounds to change the page name. SEO arguments really don't hold water here, Google will have no problem finding this page and we can still prominently display Reachmen as an alternate name.

Generally I think we should take the lead on these kind of changes from the developers and writers themselves, rather than refusing to change based on older sources or personal preference. We want the article to be as up-to-date as possible and this should include the page name. I think Ilaro has the right idea with regards to leaving gamespace unchanged, specifically the use of Reachman on Skyrim pages since that is the term used in that game. —⁠Legoless (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

We would be hard pressed to consider this a retcon intentional or otherwise when factoring in the sources that proventus provided which show that even in the latest dlc, Reachman are still referring to themselves as reachman. It’s very clear zos has pushed an alternative title for them. But to say it’s a full on replacement of the term that is 20 years old when it’s not even a hard rule in the dlc in question is a stretch. At this point this feels more like a preference based decision either way it goes and I’ll just be on the record to say my preference is to stay with the longstanding, and still used as of Markarth. “Reachman” Dcking20 (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm against doing this the reason why is because for most lore sources and most npcs they are called the Reachmen. Reachfolk seems to be an alternate name used in the Reach regions. Its best they are called by Reachmen because that is what many lore sources call them. So there is more lore books and npcs that call them Reachmen then there are that call them Reachfolk. So that should be reflected in the page. Its good enough we have them called Reachmen, then Witchmen of High Rock then Reachfolk its good the way it is now. We should not be calling them Reachfolk for a page. So Reachmen should be the proper name we call them by, do to the reasons listed. (TheVampKnight (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2020 (UTC))

Rename to "Reachman"?

Given that the page treats the Reachman as a race and not a faction, shouldn't the title of the article reflect it? Every other major race article uses a singular form like the one for the Lore:Nord, Lore:Imperial, Lore:Dunmer, Lore:Altmer, and so on, even the Nedes, a relatively similar group(as they both lack unity and are treated as a race), has the singular form for their article name.-WriterS (talk) 23:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Your logic is sound so I have to agree with moving it to Reachman. Imperialbattlespire (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense, and Lore:Reachman already exists as a redirect so it should be a simple matter of moving it.--Talyyn (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point, but "Reachman" to sounds utterly alien to me. Might just be me... tbh I prefer "Reachfolk" to "Reachman". --Jimeee (talk) 13:33, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I also remain in favour of a rename to Reachfolk per the above discussion. There might be a lack of consistency between this page and certain others but this is an article about a group of people and should remain plural to avoid sounding alien. —⁠Legoless (talk) 13:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Support Reachman or Reachmen, still oppose ReachfolkDcking20 (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I move instead that the other articles be moved to be plural in accordance with Wikipedia's naming conventions. -Dcsg (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Reachmen are probably the only race page (alongside some minor entries for various Nedic tribes/subcultures, and Kothringi, who are identical in singular and plural as far as we know.) that is done properly. Sometimes older guidelines on this site are used only because they are old rather than because they are good. I support the change of all main races to plural. And I oppose change of naming convention here.Tyrvarion (talk) 07:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Same. All races should be plural, which has the benefit of enabling this page to stay where it is. --Enodoc (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

(←) So what you're saying is that all races should change to make this one stay where it is? I very much disagree with that and don't thing we need to be changing our 20+ year precedent of Nord, Imperial, etc just so this one page can be plural, or changing our existing policies to fit wikipedia's policy. Our current standard is that we use wikipedia's policies if we don't already have a precedent set that overrides it. In this case, we DO have a precedent already, and a VERY long standing one. Why is this page so important that all others have to move? Shocking proposal: We have an exception and we use Reachmen for this, and the existing ones for others, and it has the added benefit of enabling all pages to stay where they are. Jeancey (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not that this page is important. It is simply the only one that happens to fit guidelines more properly. Obviously, all previous pages should have redirects still. Renaming this page is simply a disservice and while moving the other pages is more work, it is the more appropriate course of action. What is more, it seems that there are generally more voices in favor of changing other pages than this one.Tyrvarion (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to adopt Wikipedia's policy when we have naturally ended up almost perfectly taking the opposite position. It is nothing but really repetitive work to conform some of our oldest and most linked pages to this new standard, and damage to our SEO. There is no benefit in taking this course of action. I also don't see anything close to a clear consensus on this issue over all of the talk pages this discussion has happened. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 21:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I've put my 5 cents in lore Races talk page but will put it here as well. Heavily agree with Race names (names for most groups and subcultures really- like Druids) being plural. The pages speak of them as a collective, so the title should reflect it. Also agree with plural being more humanizing and less confusing, not to mention the singulars can indeed just sound "odd", even if grammatically correct CoolBlast3 (talk) 21:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

As moving the pages would negatively impact the SEO and thus the site and there really is no benefit to moving them, I really see no reason to undertake a large change to many long standing pages just to make some people feel better about Reachmen.... I really don't understand why the push for this is in anyway important or helpful, as we should be striving to make the pages themselves better, and not arguing over the page names that have long standing precedent. Why cause large amounts of work and problems for negative gain? Jeancey (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Assumption that this is "just to make some people feel better about Reachmen" is flawed. This discussion here is a result of a bigger discussion that is far more encompassing and does not involve the Reachmen page any more or less than any other race page. Plural names for races is more consistent with far more widespread usage of plural forms on the site for Factions. Granted races are not factions but both refer to groups of people, and there are cases where it gets blurred (Druids of Galen/Druids in general for example). It is counterintuitive to have a handful of groups in singular and hundreds in plural.Tyrvarion (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense to make this page singular in line with the other race pages than to switch the other race pages to plural. I remain in favour of Reachfolk though, which is plural. —⁠Legoless (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Since it’s been brought up, I still oppose the renaming to Reachfolk, am neutral on Reachman or Reachman. Dcking20 (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I would be interested in hearing more about how changing Breton to Bretons (for example) would negatively impact our SEO. --Enodoc (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Dubious reference for clans being destroyed

This is kind of a meta section relating to claims on some of the clan pages (Doomfang, Dreadhorn, Ghostsong etc) that they where either destroyed or disbanded with the only reference being "Events of Skyrim"

None of the clans or their apparent destruction/disbandment where mentioned in Skyrim and it seems to be based on the fact that all the enemy reachman in Skyrim are called "Forsworn" when fighting them, im not sure if that's a good reference as if we use generic npc names as a base then every Reaver in Solstheim is part of a "Reaver clan", every bandit in Skyrim is part of a "bandit clan" etc etc --Tauin (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out the state of Reachman affairs in the Fourth Era without making a judgment call one way or another on what happened to the individual clans. —⁠Legoless (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)